Murowisky v. Pyrene Manufacturing Co.
New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau
1Opinion of the Court
ífc íJí H* ❖ ❖ if:
The facts developed by the evidence are essentially as follows:
That on May 5th, 1938, and for some time prior thereto, the petitioner was employed by the respondent in an occupation which required the frequent use of solder fluxes and various acids and chemicals incidental to the soldering process. On that day the petitioner testified that while in the performance of her work she sustained an acid burn to her right eye. The testimony indicates that the petitioner was working under the most unusual circumstances; that it was not uncommon for the girls to sustain burns of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Collins v. McKee ex rel. TrubySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Walsh v. KotlerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956